Chennai Court August 2016 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
V. Anitharani Vs. The Registrar, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a writ of mandamus, directing the third respondent to immediately issue the Provisional Certificate, Consolidated Marks Statement and Degree completion certificate to the petitioner for having successfully completed B.A., English under Registration No.43512TU25634 within a reasonable time as may be fixed by this Court.) 1. The petitioner, in the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition would aver, among other things, that, she studied B.A., (English) at Visya College, Salem, affiliated to Periyar University, during the year 2011-12 and 2012-13, and she successfully passed the First and Second years of the said course and on account of family circumstances, she shifted her studies to Sri Lakshmi College of Arts and Science, Kallakurichi, Villupuram, affiliated to Tiruvalluvar University / third respondent, during the year 2014-15, wherein she has successfully completed the final year of B.A....
Pratheesh Durai Vs. The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tirunel ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to sanction and pay the educational loan to the Petitioner in B.E. Mechanical Engineering based on his Loan Application dated 21.3.2016.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter on behalf of the Second Respondent and the same is adopted by the First Respondent/The General Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Regional Office, Tirunelveli. 3. According to the Petitioner, he is now studying in second year Bachelor of Engineering Course(Mechanical Engineering) at Dr.Sivanthi Adithanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur. Earlier, he secured 1057 marks in Higher Secondary Examination and applied for B.E. Course through Anna University. After counselling, he was given admission in B.E. Course under self-financing at Dr.Sivanthi Adithanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur. His father is an agriculturist and he is not in a position to provide necessary funds...
M. Murugesan Vs. State Rep. by The Deputy Superintendant of Police, Vi ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-02-2016
(Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records and set aside the order dated 31.05.2016 passed in Cr.M.P.No.244 of 2016 in Special Case No.60 of 2014 on the file of the Learned Special Judge/ Special Court for Trail of Cases Under Prevention of Corruption Act, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.) 1. This is an application challenging the order dated 31.05.2016 passed in Cr.M.P.No.244 of 2016 in Special Case No.60 of 2014, refusing to recall PW3. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent. 3. Dismissal of the petition to recall P.W.3 is justified or not is the issue to be considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the principle of fair trial requires that an opportunity should be afforded to the petitioner to cross examine P.W.3 and therefore, the petition to recall P.W.3 has to be allowed. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) woul...
S. Maria Arputham Vs. The Joint Commissioner, Executive Officer, Kanya ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 6.8.2012 made in NO.487/B/2012 passed by the 2nd Respondent in confirming the order dated 16.11.2011 made in Unsettled Document B24/2011 passed by the 3rd Respondent in pursuance of the communication dated 1.6.2011 made in Na.Ka.No.1791/2011/G3 by the 1st Respondent and communication to the 2nd respondent dated 30.7.2012 made in Na.Ka.No.G3/1791/2011 and quash the same and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to register the Unsettled Document bearing B24/2011 forthwith.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 6.8.2012 made in No.487/B/2012 passed by the second Respondent, confirming the order dated 16.11.2011 made in Unsettled Document B24/2011 passed by the third Respondent in pursuan...
XOMOX Sanmar Ltd., Chennai Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (C.T), Mylap ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: In W.P.No.24402 of 2014: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the respondent passed in TIN/33680923400/2007-2008, dated 10.07.2014 and quash the same in so far as the assessment pertains to reversal of ITC for Rs.14,10,525/- under Section 18 of TNVAT Act, 2006.) 1. Heard Mr.N.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in all Writ Petitions and Mr.Manokaran Sundaram, learned Additional Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent in all Writ Petitions. 2. The petitioner, who is a registered dealer under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax, 2006 (hereinafter referred as "TNVAT Act") and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred as "CST Act"), has filed all these Writ Petitions challenging the orders of assessment for the relevant years. Since the legal issues raised in all these Writ Petitions are identical, the Writ Petitions are hear...
Sathiyaseelan Vs. The Assistant Director and Personnel Assistant to th ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to rectify the mistake committed in the UDR Scheme by the second respondent in connection with S.Nos.680/1 and 680/3B situated at Porulur Village, Oddanchathiram Taluk, Dindigul District based on the Petitioner's representation dated 31.7.2015 and dispose of the same within the time framed by this Court.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. By consent of both sides, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents. 4. According to the Petitioner, he is in possession of agricultural land in S.F.No.680/3B, situated at Porulur, Village, OddanchathiramTaluk, Dindigul District, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 20 cents.. As a matter of fact, the adjacent land owners also doing agricultural activities. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Second Respondent's Office published the UDR...
Kallar Kalvi Kazhagam, Usilampatti, Madurai Vs. The District Registrar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4700/A2/2015, dated 03.12.2015 and consequent impugned order of 1st Respondent in Na.Ka.No.4700/A2/2015, dated 21.12.2015, quash the same and consequently, direct the 1st respondent to accept the Form VII presented by petitioner and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to approve the Educational Agency of the Petitioner for the tenure of office for a period of three years from 30.11.2015.) 1. Heard both sides. 2. Counter of First Respondent is filed. 3. No counter is filed on behalf of Second Respondent. 4. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final hearing. 5. The Petitioner / Society has preferred the instant Writ Petition before this Court praying for passing of an order by this Court in calling for the records relating to the impugned...
Arul Perummari and Others Vs. State represented by Tirunelveli Distric ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in Crime No.170 of 2015 on the file of the 1st Respondent and quash the same and pass such further or other orders.) 1. Section 482 Cr.P.C., saves inherent power of the Court. Such inherent power can be exercised either to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Invoking such inherent power, this petition has been filed to quash the proceedings on the ground that the continuance would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 2. Acase in Crime No.124 of 2008 has been registered under Sections 307 and 379 (N.P) IPC by the 1st respondent against the petitioner/sole accused. 3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the petitioners and the second respondent, appeared in person and their identifications were also verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identity of the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Sid...
Nagajothi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary of State P ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention of the petitioner's husband Sakthivel @ Mandaiyan Son of Rajan aged about 23 years branded as "Goonda" and confined in Central Prison, Coimbatore vide the order of the 2nd respondent in Memo C. No.53/C/IS/2015 dated 30.10.2015 and quash the same as illegal and set the petitioner at liberty and thus render justice.) S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.No. 53/G/IS/2016 dated 30.10.2015. 2. Even though the petitioner has raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, the learned counsel confined his arguments only to the ground of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the pe...
R. Amudha Vs. The District Registrar, Office of the District Registrar ...
Court: Chennai Madurai
Decided on: Aug-01-2016
(Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order dated 15.3.2016 on the file of the Second Respondent and to quash the same as illegal and consequently, for a direction directing the Second Respondent to permit the Petitioner to register the property of the Petitioner in New S.No.303/19 B, measuring an extent of 0.03.20 Ares(3384 sq.ft) situated at Pillaimar Street @ Anna Street, Adirampattinam, Pattukkottai Taluk, Thanjavur District based on her application dated 15.3.2016.) 1. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2. 2. No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2. 3. Since no adverse order is passed against the Third Respondent and also this Court bearing-in-mind the fact of an avoidable delay, dispenses with the issuance of n...
- ‹ Prev
- 76
- 77
- 78
- 79
- 80
- 81
- 83
- 84
- 85
- 86
- Next ›
- Last »